JUDGMENT :

AMIT B. BORKAR, J.

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

3. The question that arose during the course of hearing this application is of seminal importance for the legal profession. Therefore, we have heard the parties to the application and Shri Anilkumar Mulchandani @ Anil S/o. Shankarlal Mulchandani, Advocate. Therefore, to appreciate the contention, we would present the factual backdrop as under:-

The applicants have filed the present application invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the registration of the First Information Report No. 509/2021 dated 02.11.2021 registered with the non-applicant no. 1- Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999. The sum and substance of the averments made in the application are to the effect that the applicants and the non-applicant no. 3 have resolved their dispute amicably, and therefore the Court proceedings initiated against the applicants are required to be quashed and set aside.

4. On 23.03.2022, when we heard Shri Anil Mardikar, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that the parties to the application since have settled their dispute amicably, the case for quashing the Court proceedings against the applicants was made out. The non-applicant no. 3, in reply to the said submission, stated that though he had earlier consented to the settlement of the dispute, now he is not interested in settling the dispute with the applicants as he has not received the balance amount as agreed in Deed of Settlement dated 11.11.2021. He stated that the post-dated cheques referred to in paragraph no. 2 of the Deed of Settlement were handed over to his Advocate, Shri Anilkumar Mulchandani. However, he stated before the Court that in spite of his several requests, his Advocate refused to hand over those post-dated cheques, which were part of the settlement. He stated that due to refusal on the part of his Advocate to hand over post-dated cheques, he had not received the consideration as agreed in the Deed of Settlement. Therefore, he is not agreeable to settling the dispute with the applicants.

5. During the course of the hearing on 23.03.2022, Shri Anilkumar Mulchandani, Advocate, was not present. Therefore we kept back the matter for some time. Thereafter Shri Anilkumar Mulchandani, Advocate, appeared before the Court. He stated that post-dated cheques were handed over to him by the non-applicant no. 3- Ashok Agrawal. The non-applicant no. 3 denied the factum of handing over post-dated cheques to Shri Anilkumar Mulchandani, Advocate. This court, therefore, directed parties to file their affidavits to clarify the situation of handing over the cheques to Shri Anilkumar Mulchandani, Advocate. Accordingly, Shri Anilkumar Mulchandani, Advocate appearing for the non-applicant no. 3 filed his personal affidavit dated 24.03.2022 wherein he stated as under :-

“10. I say that some of the relative and Ashok Agrawal referred to various persons, which were known to me. I say that the parties informed me that though they have arrived at a Settlement, the amounts is only to be paid after Mr. Pankaj Mehadia is released on bail and/or the proceedings are quashed which every is earlier.”

6. Shri Ashok Agrawal (non-applicant no. 3) also filed his affidavit dated 24.03.2022, wherein he stated as under:-

“12. I say that thereafter I had requested Advocate Shri Anilkumar Mulchandani on 18.11.2021 to handover my Four Demand Draft/Pay Order of dated 09.11.2021 and dated 11.11.2021 so as enable me to present Bank. I say that my Advocate Shri Anil Mulchandani told me that he will handover the Demand Draft/Pay Order after the applicant no. 1 is released on Bail.”

. . . . .

16. I say that thereafter I had again visited the office of Advocate